MADANMOHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of a dispute relating to the appointment and continuance on the post of an Assistant Teacher in the subject of Vyakaran (Grammar) claimed by the petitioner Madanmohan Pandey in the first writ petition, as against the claim of Dr. Phulena Shukla, the petitioner in the second writ petition and the respondent no.7 in the first writ petition on the post of Assistant Teacher Hindi (Adhunik) in Shri Narang Sanskrit Snatkottar Mahavidhyalaya, Ghughali, district Maharajganj duly affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi which is a University as described in the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, recognized and financially aided by the State Government. Even though the subjects to be taught, while holding the respective posts are different but on the facts as unfolded, the dispute is with regard to the availability of only one post amongst them, which also involves the status of the vacancy against which appointment is being claimed by each of the rival contenders as well as their mode of appointment and approval by the Competent Authority.

(2.) The crux of the dispute is as to whether the petitioner, Madanmohan Pandey has a valid claim of appointment and continuance on the said post as against the appointment, approval and continuance of the rival contender Dr.Phulena Shukla. The dispute can be more appropriately understood if the facts are taken note of in the chronological order as delineated herein-under.

(3.) At the very outset we may put on record that there is no dispute between the parties about the institution affiliated to the University referred to herein-above and the applicability of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the 1st Statutes of the University its Ordinances and Regulations. Thus the appointments, the question of approval, the payment of salary and the decision by the Competent Authorities in this regard have to be viewed accordingly. We may put on record that in neither of the writ petitions the University has been made a party to the proceedings either by Madanmohan Pandey or by Dr. Phulena Shukla. Thus the exchange of affidavits is between the petitioners and the private respondents as well as the State Authorities who have brought on record the relevant documents on which reliance has been placed.